Sir, - Garret FitzGerald (Opinion, March 10th) highlights an important point regarding Government strategy on the forthcoming Nice Treaty referendum. He writes: "And is the Government not looking for additional amendments to put to the people with the Nice Treaty amendment? A referendum on banning of corporate funding of political parties would secure an impressive turnout."
Why would the Government be going out of its way "looking for" additional amendments to tie in with the Nice Treaty? It seems that the Government, with the apparent support of the two main Opposition parties, will go to any lengths to divert attention from the content of the Treaty of Nice. Its plans to tie the forthcoming referendum on Nice with a number of other issues is a deliberate attempt to dilute the impact of the Supreme Court judgments on fair referendum procedure.
There has never been a word of apology from the mainstream party establishments about the fact that the Supreme Court found them guilty of unconstitutional, unfair and undemocratic practices in referendums. Instead, they have gone out of their way to criticise, undermine and get around the McKenna judgment. It is worth remembering that all referendums between 1987 and 1995, when the Supreme Court made its ruling, were effectively won by unconstitutional means.
In the history of this State, there have never been more than two referendum issues put together at the same time. The sole purpose of the Government putting multiple proposals now is to undermine any opportunity for proper debate on the Treaty of Nice - a highly contentious issue, as illustrated by John Bruton's and Ruairi Quinn's criticisms of it in the Dail last December. This multiple referendum strategy also serves to prevent the Referendum Commission, which was set up as a progressive response to the McKenna judgment, from doing an effective job.
The result of the Amsterdam and Good Friday Agreement referendums, when almost 40 per cent of people voted against Amsterdam but overwhelmingly in favour of the agreement, proves that people are well able to discriminate between various issues. Nevertheless, multiple referendums will drastically reduce the amount of public attention that can be given to each issue. The Treaty of Nice requires in-depth analysis and debate. I believe that everyone, irrespective of their views on the Treaty, should insist that there is a proper public debate on it.
There must be an objective White Paper on this treaty and a summary of it should be sent to every household, as was done with the White Paper on the Treaty of Amsterdam. There is no urgency to ratify the Treaty of Nice. There is no time limit on ratification and no EU State has ratified it yet. This treaty will have long-term implications for all EU States as well as the applicant states, and it should be given the time and attention it deserves. - Yours, etc,.
Patricia McKenna MEP, European Parliament Offices, Molesworth Street, Dublin 2.